alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00632- CR
Troy Anthony Jenk ins, Ap pellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2012 -50 4, TH E H ONO RAB LE R. B RUCE B OY ER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Troy Anthony J enkins, who has not y et been finally sentenc ed, has filed a notice of appea l of the trial cour

t’s order deny ing his pre trial motion to suppress evidence

. We do not have jurisdiction over such a

n interlocutory

appea l. I n Texas, appea ls in a criminal case are permitted only when t h ey ar e s pecif ically authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine , 330 S.W .3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see Bayless v. State , 91 S. W
. 3 d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“[A] defe ndant’s right of appea l is

a statutorily cr ea t ed ri g ht.”). The standard for deter mining whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to hear and deter mine a case “is not whether the appea l is prec luded by law, but whether the appeal i s authorized b y l aw . ” B l a n ton v. Stat e , 369 S.W .3d 894, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Abbott v. State , 271 S.W .3d 694, 6 9 6

– 9 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)); State ex rel. Lykos , 330 S.W .3d at 915. Thus, a court of appea ls does not have jurisdiction to revie w interlocutory order sunless that jurisdiction has been expressly g rante d by law. Ex parte Apolinar , 820 S.W .2d 792, 794

(Tex. Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 91); Ex parte Shumake , 953 S.W .2d 842, 844 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). No such g rant exis ts for a defe ndant’s direc t appea l of an interlocutory order deny ing a pretria l motion to suppress. See Dahlem v. State , 322 S.W .3d 685, 691 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2010, pet. 1 ref ’d) (no statute or rule allows defe n d an t s t o appea l interlocutory order s deny ing motions to suppress); Jaramillo v. State , No. 13-09-00545- CR, 2009 WL 4918768, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec
. 21, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not d es i gn at ed for publication) (eve n if written order deny ing motion to suppress had been in rec ord, order deny ing motion to suppress was interlocutory order that was not appea lable); Cochran v. State , No. 08-02-00395- CR, 2002 WL 31431487, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Oct. 31, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (conc luding that co u rt l ac k ed jurisdiction beca use denial of defe ndant’s motion to suppress evidenc e is not immediately

appea lable). The a ppeal is dismissed for wa nt of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose, and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Oc tober 25, 2013 Do Not Publish

We note that the State is entitled to appea l an order g ranting a pretria l motion to suppress 1 evidenc e. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc

. art. 44.01(a) (5). Howeve r, no such corr esponding provision entitles a def

endant to appe al the denia l of such a motion. See id. art. 44.02. 2
# C_2020320EN.01001904.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta — Spain) — DC v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

(Case C-522/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 537 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Federal law prohibits the transfer of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

Ms. JENKINS of Kansas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

Federal law prohibits the transfer of individuals detained 

at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

to the United States. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the 107 detainees currently imprisoned at 

4 United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

5 Cuba, are imprisoned there for various reasons relat6 ing to national security and the safety and security 

7 of our allies and military forces around the world; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 537 IH 

1 (2) the transfer or release of those 107 detain2 ees would present grave dangers and security risks 

3 to the foreign countries where some may be released, 

4 and to the communities and military installations at 

5 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Charleston, South Caro6 lina, and the community of Florence, Colorado, that 

7 have been identified as possible transfer locations; 

8 (3) sections 1032, 1033, and 2808 in the Carl 

9 Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National De10 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, clear11 ly prohibits the use of funds to construct or modify 

12 facilities in the United States to house detainees 

13 transferred from United States Naval Station, 

14 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the use of funds for 

15 the transfer or release of individuals detained at 

16 United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

17 Cuba, and the use of funds for the construction of 

18 any new facilities at United States Naval Station, 

19 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; 

20 (4) it is the sense of the House of Representa21 tives that to do so would clearly and unequivocally 

22 violate Federal law and the appropriations powers 

23 enumerated to Congress in article I, section 9, 

24 clause 7 of the United States Constitution; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 537 IH 

1 (5) it is the sense of the House of Representa2 tives that the President’s continued planning and 

3 discussion of such a closure and transfer of terror4 ists may result in illegal actions committed by him. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020077EN.01003802.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the l’Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — Kypriaki Kentriki Archi v GA

(Case C-154/19) (1)

(2020/C 77/54)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 14-1369 No. 14-1371 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

v. JUAN G. QUIÑONES-MELÉNDEZ, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on July 1, 2015 is amended as follows: On page 12, line 10, an "a" is inserted between "of" and "substantively."
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 22-03

TO: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

Veterinary Services Leadership Team

FROM: Byron Rippke

Director

SUBJECT: Extended use of currently approved, non-Single Tier compliant

domestic labels

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Notice is to inform licensees, permittees, and applicants that the 

use of domestic labels that are not compliant with title 9, Code of Federal 

Regulations (9 CFR), part 112; APHIS Rule 2011-0049 (Single Label Claim for 

Veterinary Biological Products); and APHIS Rule 2008-008 (Labeling and 

Packaging) may be extended until April 30, 2023. Extended use of currently 

approved labels will only be allowed when all necessary submissions to meet the 9 

CFR 112 requirements of incorporating APHIS Rule 2011-0049 and APHIS Rule 

2008-008 have been met.

II. BACKGROUND

The Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) implemented the revised regulations of 

9 CFR 112 in Notice 16-15 and then later granted an extension to the 

implementation date in Notice 19-14. Additionally, CVB had further extended the 

use of currently approved labels through April 30, 2022, if firms had met the 

requirements of APHIS Rule 2011-0049 and APHIS Rule 2008-008. 

III. ACTION (or POLICY)

The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to cause unexpected supply chain issues 

related to accessing vials, containers, cartons, and labeling materials used for 

labeling final product. Because of these delays, CVB will grant an extension, upon a 

firm’s request, to use currently approved labels through April 30, 2023. Firms 

wanting this extension should submit a letter to CVB requesting the extension for 

specific label(s) and include a list of the specific Label Number(s). 

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue

PO Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

(515) 337-6100
CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 22-03

Page 2

 An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

Submit requests to:

Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB)

Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing

National Centers for Animal Health (NCAH)

1920 Dayton Avenue

P.O. Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

Authorized NCAH portal users should submit requests via the portal.

Approval of these requests will be contingent upon CVB receipt of all necessary 

submissions to meet APHIS Rule 2011-0049 and APHIS Rule 2008-008.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION/ APPLICABILITY

This policy is effective immediately.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR FREEDOM TAX CREDIT PLUS L.P. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000854926
<NAME> FREEDOM TAX CREDIT PLUS L.P.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       5,795,054
<SECURITIES>                                   113,553
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,081,697
<PP&E>                                     142,977,169
<DEPRECIATION>                              44,409,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             107,181,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,608,676
<BONDS>                                     69,914,088
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,658,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               107,181,062
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,333,134
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,033,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               500,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,584,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,784,818)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,784,818)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (64.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2570 

GROVER L. DRUMMOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Governor of Maryland,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.

(CA-04-3765-1-BEL)

Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Grover L. Drummond, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Grover L. Drummond appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and

find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Drummond v.

Ehrlich, No. CA-04-3765-1-BEL (D. Md. filed Dec. 10, 2004 & entered

Dec. 14, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 10.10**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT**

**OF THE**

**SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. PROFIT SHARING AND 401(K) PLAN**

(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2004) 

 

**WHEREAS**, Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Profit Sharing, 401(k) and ESOP Plan, AsAmended and Restated Effective January 1, 2004 (the “Plan”); and 

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company has delegated authority to amend the Plan to the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Benefit Plans Committee (the “Committee”), and the Committee has determined that amendment of the Planis necessary and desirable. 

 

******NOW, THEREFORE**,pursuant to the power reserved to the Company by Section 10.01 of the Plan, and by virtue of the authority delegated to the Committee, the Plan, as previously amended, is hereby further amended, effective as of, and contingent upon the closing ofthe Company’s sale of the stock of Sky Financial Solutions, Inc. on March 31, 2004, by adding a the following new Section 13.12 to the Plan, immediately after Section 13.11 thereof. 

 

“13.12 Vesting of Sky Financial Solutions, Inc. Employees’ Accounts. Effective March 31,2004, the Company sold all of the outstanding stock of Sky Financial Solutions, Inc. (‘Sky Solutions’). Effective March 31, 2004 (the ‘Closing Date’), and contingent upon the closing of the sale of all of the outstanding stock ofSky Solutions on the Closing Date, the Accounts of each Participant who is an employee of Sky Solutions on the Closing Date will be fully vested.” 

 

*             *             *

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** on behalf of the Committee, theundersigned Committee member has executed this amendment this 9th day of March 2004.
#### In the Matter of Darby C., Alleged to be a Person in Need of Supervision, Appellant. Fulton County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Fulton County (Jung, J.), entered September 19, 1990, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, to extend placement of respondent with petitioner.

Respondent has appealed Family Court’s order granting petitioner’s application to extend placement of respondent with petitioner for 12 months. However, in view of respondent’s release from custody in June 1991, this matter has been rendered moot *(see, Matter of Smith v Newberry,*154 AD2d 941, *lv denied*75 NY2d 705). Insofar as respondent has not raised any issues likely to escape judicial review, this appeal presents no exception to the mootness doctrine *(see, supra)*and should be dismissed.

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 July 7, 2015
U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590
Re: Petition of Transportation Techno logy Center, Inc. for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

Dear Madam or Sir:
The Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) respectfu lly submits the attached requ est for an exemption from several provisions of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Re gulations (C.F.R.) to assist the North American Railroads advance the use of small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for the evaluation of railroad infrastructure and operations. TTCI is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads (AAR), which represents the North American Class I freight railroads and Amtrak. It manages a program of Strategic Research Initiatives for the AAR and provides technological services to ra ilway industries around the world.
This request is motivated primarily by the desire to maxi mize safety in railroad operations by assisting member railroads develop and demonstrate techniques for inspection of railway track and structures as well as techniques for initial assessment of derailments and othe r incidents such as fires and potentia l hazardous material releases using UASs. In addition, TTCI desires to occasionally perform th ese inspections and assessments for railroads or transit agencies.
While integration of UASs into the railroads’ inspection regime would not eliminate the current need for in-person visual track inspection required by the Federal Railroa d Administration it would allow the railroads to broadly evaluate assets and operations with UAS, resulting in a safe r and more efficient railroad network. Further, use of UAS for initial assessment of derailments or other incidents could greatly reduce the risk of exposing first responders to hazardous conditions.
Accordingly, the grant of an exemption is consistent w ith Congress’ intent, reflected in Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (M odernization Act), that safe systems be permitted in the national airspace prior to the issuance of final regulations governing general use of these systems.

Sincerely

Richard B. Joy 55500 DOT Road P.O. Box 11130 Pueblo, Colorado 81001-0130

Richard B. Joy Principal Investigator 2

Engineering Services (719) 584-0524 e-mail: richard_joy@.aar.com
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 16, 2020

No. 04-20-00439-CV

IN RE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI10989

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

Proceeding 

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

On September 9, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for

temporary relief pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. This court

believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further

consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may file

a response to the petition in this court no later than September 30, 2020. Any such response

must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

 Relator’s request for temporary relief is GRANTED. The trial court’s August 27, 2020

order granting in part the real party in interest’s motion to compel is STAYED pending final

resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED September 16, 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

 CLERK OF COURT

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CI10989, styled Jake R. Trevino v. University of Texas at San 

Antonio, pending in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Honorable Rosie Alvarado, sitting 

by assignment, signed the order at issue in this original proceeding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item 1. of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        489
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,278
<PP&E>                                              82
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                        (78)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,980
<SALES>                                          6,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,644
<CGS>                                            4,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   531
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (107)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (531)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (531)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)



</TABLE>